这两种语言具有相似的特性集。性能上的差异来自Fortran不允许混淆的事实，除非使用了EQUIVALENCE语句。任何有别名的代码都不是有效的Fortran，但是它是由程序员而不是编译器来检测这些错误的。因此，Fortran编译器忽略了可能的内存指针别名，并允许它们生成更有效的代码。看一下C语言中的这个小例子:

void transform (float *output, float const * input, float const * matrix, int *n)
{
    int i;
    for (i=0; i<*n; i++)
    {
        float x = input[i*2+0];
        float y = input[i*2+1];
        output[i*2+0] = matrix[0] * x + matrix[1] * y;
        output[i*2+1] = matrix[2] * x + matrix[3] * y;
    }
}

这个函数在优化后会比Fortran函数运行得慢。为什么如此?如果你在输出数组中写入值，你可能会改变矩阵的值。毕竟，指针可以重叠并指向相同的内存块(包括int指针!)C编译器被迫从内存中重新加载所有计算的四个矩阵值。

在Fortran中，编译器只加载一次矩阵值，并将它们存储在寄存器中。它可以这样做是因为Fortran编译器假定指针/数组在内存中不重叠。

Fortunately, the restrict keyword and strict-aliasing have been introduced to the C99 standard to address this problem. It's well supported in most C++ compilers these days as well. The keyword allows you to give the compiler a hint that the programmer promises that a pointer does not alias with any other pointer. The strict-aliasing means that the programmer promises that pointers of different type will never overlap, for example a double* will not overlap with an int* (with the specific exception that char* and void* can overlap with anything).

If you use them you will get the same speed from C and Fortran. However, the ability to use the restrict keyword only with performance critical functions means that C (and C++) programs are much safer and easier to write. For example, consider the invalid Fortran code: CALL TRANSFORM(A(1, 30), A(2, 31), A(3, 32), 30), which most Fortran compilers will happily compile without any warning but introduces a bug that only shows up on some compilers, on some hardware and with some optimization options.

The faster code is not really up to the language, is the compiler so you can see the ms-vb "compiler" that generates bloated, slower and redundant object code that is tied together inside an ".exe", but powerBasic generates too way better code. Object code made by a C and C++ compilers is generated in some phases (at least 2) but by design most Fortran compilers have at least 5 phases including high-level optimizations so by design Fortran will always have the capability to generate highly optimized code. So at the end is the compiler not the language you should ask for, the best compiler i know is the Intel Fortran Compiler because you can get it on LINUX and Windows and you can use VS as the IDE, if you're looking for a cheap tigh compiler you can always relay on OpenWatcom.

更多信息: http://ed-thelen.org/1401Project/1401-IBM-Systems-Journal-FORTRAN.html

This is more than somewhat subjective, because it gets into the quality of compilers and such more than anything else. However, to more directly answer your question, speaking from a language/compiler standpoint there is nothing about Fortran over C that is going to make it inherently faster or better than C. If you are doing heavy math operations, it will come down to the quality of the compiler, the skill of the programmer in each language and the intrinsic math support libraries that support those operations to ultimately determine which is going to be faster for a given implementation.

编辑:@Nils等人提出了一个很好的观点，即C语言中指针使用的差异，以及可能存在的别名，这可能会使C语言中最简单的实现变慢。然而，在C99中有一些方法可以解决这个问题，比如通过编译器优化标志和/或C语言的实际编写方式。这在@Nils的回答和随后的评论中有很好的介绍。

使用现代标准和编译器，不!

Some of the folks here have suggested that FORTRAN is faster because the compiler doesn't need to worry about aliasing (and hence can make more assumptions during optimisation). However, this has been dealt with in C since the C99 (I think) standard with the inclusion of the restrict keyword. Which basically tells the compiler, that within a give scope, the pointer is not aliased. Furthermore C enables proper pointer arithmetic, where things like aliasing can be very useful in terms of performance and resource allocation. Although I think more recent version of FORTRAN enable the use of "proper" pointers.

对于现代实现，C通用优于FORTRAN(尽管它也非常快)。

http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/fortran.html

编辑:

一个公平的批评似乎是，基准测试可能是有偏见的。这里是另一个来源(相对于C)，将结果放在更多的上下文中:

http://julialang.org/benchmarks/

你可以看到C在大多数情况下优于Fortran(再次看到下面的批评也适用于这里);正如其他人所指出的，基准测试是一门不精确的科学，很容易偏袒一种语言而不是其他语言。但它确实说明了Fortran和C语言有相似的性能。

我将Fortran、C和c++的速度与netlib中的经典Levine-Callahan-Dongarra基准进行了比较。使用OpenMP的多语言版本是 http://sites.google.com/site/tprincesite/levine-callahan-dongarra-vectors C语言更丑陋，因为它一开始是自动翻译，加上某些编译器的限制和pragmas插入。 c++就是在适用的地方使用STL模板的C。在我看来，STL在是否能提高可维护性方面好坏参半。

为了了解自动函数内联在多大程度上改进了优化，只需要进行很少的练习，因为示例基于传统的Fortran实践，其中很少依赖内联。

到目前为止使用最广泛的C/ c++编译器缺乏自动向量化，而这些基准测试严重依赖于此。

关于这之前的帖子:在Fortran中使用括号来指示更快或更准确的求值顺序的例子有两个。已知的C编译器没有在不禁用更重要的优化的情况下观察括号的选项。

这两种语言具有相似的特性集。性能上的差异来自Fortran不允许混淆的事实，除非使用了EQUIVALENCE语句。任何有别名的代码都不是有效的Fortran，但是它是由程序员而不是编译器来检测这些错误的。因此，Fortran编译器忽略了可能的内存指针别名，并允许它们生成更有效的代码。看一下C语言中的这个小例子:

void transform (float *output, float const * input, float const * matrix, int *n)
{
    int i;
    for (i=0; i<*n; i++)
    {
        float x = input[i*2+0];
        float y = input[i*2+1];
        output[i*2+0] = matrix[0] * x + matrix[1] * y;
        output[i*2+1] = matrix[2] * x + matrix[3] * y;
    }
}

这个函数在优化后会比Fortran函数运行得慢。为什么如此?如果你在输出数组中写入值，你可能会改变矩阵的值。毕竟，指针可以重叠并指向相同的内存块(包括int指针!)C编译器被迫从内存中重新加载所有计算的四个矩阵值。

在Fortran中，编译器只加载一次矩阵值，并将它们存储在寄存器中。它可以这样做是因为Fortran编译器假定指针/数组在内存中不重叠。

Fortunately, the restrict keyword and strict-aliasing have been introduced to the C99 standard to address this problem. It's well supported in most C++ compilers these days as well. The keyword allows you to give the compiler a hint that the programmer promises that a pointer does not alias with any other pointer. The strict-aliasing means that the programmer promises that pointers of different type will never overlap, for example a double* will not overlap with an int* (with the specific exception that char* and void* can overlap with anything).

If you use them you will get the same speed from C and Fortran. However, the ability to use the restrict keyword only with performance critical functions means that C (and C++) programs are much safer and easier to write. For example, consider the invalid Fortran code: CALL TRANSFORM(A(1, 30), A(2, 31), A(3, 32), 30), which most Fortran compilers will happily compile without any warning but introduces a bug that only shows up on some compilers, on some hardware and with some optimization options.